Throw-in violations

[just another ref]

In another recent thread there was a question about a throw-in violation, which caused me to review the rule and case books on this subject. As in other rules, the case book adds things which could not be determined from the rule alone. First, if the thrower steps inbounds with either foot, it's a violation. Everyone knows that. But why? The thrower shall not carry the ball onto the court? Thrower is standing out of bounds and touches inbounds with one foot. I wouldn't have considered this carrying the ball onto the court. But, this one takes it even further: 9.2.5 says that if thrower A1 reaches out and touches B1 it is a violation because touching the player gives A1 inbounds status.


Huh?

[Hawkeyes]

This makes sense if I consider that a player stepping OB still has on court status during a live ball... Which is why a player can throw the ball off them even when they're OB.
However, since the ball has OB status - the player with the ball also does...? Therefore he can't touch a ball with OB status - if he is live...
Whats the penalty?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Hawkeyes

This makes sense if I consider that a player stepping OB still has on court status during a live ball...

What is "on court" status? A player (one of the five in the game for each team) may have either inbounds or out of bounds status. If anything is touching out of bounds, his status is out of bounds, whether anything is touching inbounds or not.

[BillyMac]

9-2-Note: The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds
area or a player inbounds before the ball is released on the throw-in pass.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

In another recent thread there was a question about a throw-in violation, which caused me to review the rule and case books on this subject. As in other rules, the case book adds things which could not be determined from the rule alone. First, if the thrower steps inbounds with either foot, it's a violation. Everyone knows that. But why? The thrower shall not carry the ball onto the court? Thrower is standing out of bounds and touches inbounds with one foot. I wouldn't have considered this carrying the ball onto the court. But, this one takes it even further: 9.2.5 says that if thrower A1 reaches out and touches B1 it is a violation because touching the player gives A1 inbounds status.


Huh?

I can't find it, but I thought I remembered a case or interp that stated A1 is not considered OOB if he touches a person standing OOB. Seems this case play goes against that concept.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

I can't find it, but I thought I remembered a case or interp that stated A1 is not considered OOB if he touches a person standing OOB. Seems this case play goes against that concept.

That is true for an inbounds A1. No case needed, the rule is pretty clear on what causes a player to be OOB and touching a person is not among the reasons.

Not sure why it would be different for a thrower who is OOB.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

9-2-Note: The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds
area or a player inbounds before the ball is released on the throw-in pass.

Yeah, of course. Thanks, Billy. I should have known that was there without looking. But, just to continue to be difficult, why is this limiting factor mentioned only in the note? It seems as worthy of an article of its own as anything else.

The thrower shall not touch the inbounds area or a player inbounds before releasing the pass.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

I can't find it, but I thought I remembered a case or interp that stated A1 is not considered OOB if he touches a person standing OOB. Seems this case play goes against that concept.

Its the first play rule 7 case book. player holding ball inbounds touching another player, coach, other person out of bounds is still inbounds. Billy attached the note. Thrower in cant touch a person inbounds. Case play is screwed up as justanother points out. It is likely trying to say that B1 has inbound status and when A1, the thrower in touches him he has violated. A1 touching B1 does not make B1 out of bounds and certainly does not make A1 have inbound status. A1 has violated. they got confused in their rules...

[Nevadaref]

The ruling in the OP was first posted but he NFHS in the on-line interps.
We stated back then that the reason for the ruling was bogus.
If the NFHS feels that a thrower doing this gains an unfair advantage and wants to make this a throw-in violation, that's fine, but don't try to justify it by stating something which everyone knows is untrue. A thrower most certainly does NOT gain inbounds status by merely touching an inbounds player.